Comments

Edit Your Comment

They never once defined ‘high comsumption’. They said they put them on a diet, which I’m assuming is nothing but meat… for 8 years. Sounds to me like nothing but a scare story. Nothing is good in large quantities and we all know that. I’ll continue eating how I do.

@AceKicker: Funny thing is, IIRC, they pulled Saccharine off the carcinogen list because the type of mice they tested it with in the 70s were shown to *spontaneously develop cancer* There was even a control group of the mice that developed cancer after being injected with pure water.

Stories like this are made for media panic. All this means is that high consumption of red meat and cancer risk are seen together, NOT that cancer is caused by the meat. It could be that a person eating lots of red meat also tends to ingest ANOTHER product which increases cancer risk. You just don’t know anything from these studies.

@half-beast: “There was even a control group of the mice that developed cancer after being injected with pure water.”

This goes right along with what I’ve been saying for years — laboratories cause cancer in lab rats. I swear the strain of rats they’re using is just very cancer-prone. The slightest stress in their environment, and they just start sprouting tumors the way fields in Holland start sprouting tulips.

“The work is the first big study to show a link between meat and lung cancer. It also shows that people who eat a lot of meat have a higher risk of liver and esophageal cancer and that men raise their risk of pancreatic cancer by eating red meat.”

Huh, so people who eat a lot of burgers also drink a lot of booze and smoke cigarettes. Go figure. Thank you Captain Obvious.

I’m with @medic78. These links belong more on a Jump to Conclusions mat than in a study. There are so many variables and potential monkeywrenches that can be thrown into this conclusion that it seems almost meaningless. In the meantime, the local news can make sure it makes you tune in after the commercials to see if red meat really does give you cancer (“We won’t say, but we will imply that it does. Tune in tomorrow night to see what else might kill you.”)

The rise in cancer is more than likely correlated to all the excess crap big business dumps in our food, in the products we use, and in the environment – chemicals, preservatives, pollutants, etc.

But we hardly ever see scientific studies trying to measure this. I wonder why that is? Guess it’s not good to bite the hand that feeds.

Pretty soon, “scientific studies” like this will be the rallying cry of animal-rights and other wacko food extremists to limit consumption. Hey, they did it with “second-hand smoke” in “public places”…even though industrial pollutants affect more people on a daily basis than all the social smoking in the country.

@HrPingui: Not all vegans or vegetarians are holier-than-thou looking to smugly tout their seemingly healthier life choices. Indeed there are some insecure bad apples just like there are omnivores who love to make Homer Simpson noises at vegans whenever somebody just says the word “bacon”.

You should make your own choices based on the information you have about yourself and not concern yourself with justifying your decisions by reflexively looking to dismiss the people on the “opposite” side.